Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-03-08 Thread Ivan Čukić
Hi all, I'm a bit late to the party. If I'm not too late, one addition I'd like to propose to (4) is the Boost license. It is similar to BSD/MIT without requiring attribution with binaries. It is approved by OSI and by FSF. The reason for this proposal is that the Boost project provides one of

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-17 Thread Harald Sitter
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 12:37 AM, Luigi Toscano wrote: > Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > >> The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become >> CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way >> compatible with LGPL 3) > Do you have more

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-17 Thread Jonathan Riddell
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:18:55PM +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote: > Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 18:43:38 CET schrieb Adriaan de Groot: > > This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." > > and? there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can > >

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Luigi Toscano
Jonathan Riddell ha scritto: > The main change is for docs and other non-code files to become > CC-BY-SA 4. This allows it to be converted to code (it's one-way > compatible with LGPL 3) Do you have more details for this? I see contradicting information, it does not seem to be totally future

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Burkhard Lück
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 18:43:38 CET schrieb Adriaan de Groot: > This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." > and? there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started before 2016 can > be licensed under ..." which would seem to be exactly what you're

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Burkhard Lück
Am Freitag, 10. Februar 2017, 14:54:52 CET schrieb Jonathan Riddell: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Jonathan Riddell
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:48:41PM +0100, Burkhard Lück wrote: > I fail to understand why FDL is dropped for Documentation, content on > userbase > is still dual licensed (CC_BY-SA 3.0 and FDL 1.2) and even the > Licensing_Policy/Draft content itself is available under Creative Commons >

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Adriaan de Groot
On Friday 10 February 2017 16:06:23 Luigi Toscano wrote: > Would we allowed to keep the documents with old license and apply this only > to new one? Luigi, This point is listed under "All new source code and related data files ..." and there's an additional point 12, "Documentation started

Re: KDE licence policy update

2017-02-10 Thread Luigi Toscano
On Friday, 10 February 2017 14:54:52 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote: > I'd like to get back to my proposed update of the KDE licence policy > > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy/Draft > > I got some comments from Matija Šuklje which I incorporated and it now > includes a handy